This route is the one I told TT last summer that should have the potential of hard 5.13 or even 5.14, and which should be one among the fews of the pretiest hard routes at Longdome.

When I bolted the anchors above this wall several years ago, I noticed its potential. But I decided not to do it becuase it was evidently beyond my ability even to try its first few steps. I even had in my mind to name it \"Taipei Yellow Rose\" (due to its beautifully dark yellowish rock and because of the song \"Taipei Red Rose\" of Luo da-you, which was popular back then) if I could do it -- of course, this was my wishful thinking and now is your previlige. Again, my whole-heartedly congratulations to all of you for accomplishing this beatiful project.

There are quite a few other potential routes having the similar quality as this one at Longdome. Hope you guys can locate them (I won\'t tell you guys where they are because I still hold the imposible dream that one day I probably could climb them myself [img]images/forum/smilies/icon_wink.gif[/img] )

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
There are quite a few other potential routes having the similar quality as this one at Longdome.
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>

to Ta-Chi:

Is that wall you mean?Here probably has the first 5.14 at LongDung![img]images/forum/smilies/[/img]

This is not one of \"them,\" although I am not 100% sure where this route you show me is (I guess this route is located right in where \"Golden Valley\" connects to the \"Back Door\") If I am right, this route is a little short, and, as someone\'s comments already have it - too narrow - to become a \"classic.\" The majority of 5.13s and potential 5.14s - let me give you a hint - are located in places where you need to aid-climb in order to set a top-rope to try it!

TT:

What is \"KO?\"

A-Fwu:

I think A-Fwu is right: keep climbing up the steep face past the big V-gove might make this route harder, more strenuous, and might as well make it on the verge of 5.14 (I can only imagine this because I cannot even do 5.11 now . . .)

As to the rope-draging problem, one solution is to add one bolt right to the anchor on the right edge of the V-gove, making it a \"directional third anchor,\" such that when TR, at least one rope (TR has \"two ropes\") will go to right first from the anchor and so pass the lower edge of the V-grove and make it straight-down. But this is may be overconcerned. For a route like this steep, TR or redpoint should clip almost all bolts to avoid swing too far to get back to rock once taking a fall. If full-clipped, the damage on rope due to draging becomes minimal and sometimes can even be ignored. [img]images/forum/smilies/[/img]

1) You are right. My \"secret places\" are mostly at the Auditorium, which are on the guidebook, p. 148-151. My favorite is the big off-width crack on p. 148 which may have the potential to become one of the hardest trad routes at Longdome (5.12?). Its various variations also have potentials to become some other 5.13s sporty. Other \"likely\" routes on p. 149 and 150 entails aid-climbing to see if the quality of rock deserves to develop and, if it does, to set top anchors.

2) True, there are not too many \"tabula rasa\" remaining at Longdome. The Grand Audiotorium perhaps is the only one. But imaginations would help here -- there are lots of potential variations possible on many established routes that would yield quality, hard \"classics.\" [img]images/forum/smilies/icon_smile.gif[/img]

3) Before I bow out -- I have to, for I have had a busy summer, an intense partime job to do in addition to my study in order to \"eke out\" my family\'s livelihood. Besides, I do not think talking about 5.13 to be meaningful to me -- I am now just an old, well-rusted 5.9 climber trying to struggle to resume 5.11. But let me summarize what I think about of all the recent debates, if you guys allow me. Let me use the single issue of naming to express my otherwise multi-forked thoughts:

To name and to re-name are two different thing, each reflecting different ethics and culture. In any event, please try to think hard and smart, and to think freely whenever you are engaging in either behavior.

I have nothing to say about the behavior of renaming -- it\'s out of my comprehension. As to naming, I do have some comments: the names of Taiwan\'s routes have somehow been a little too \"masculine,\" a liitle too \"aggressive,\" and a liitle too \"martial-art like.\"

If naming represents the culture of Taiwan\'s climbing community, this means that we are becoming preoccupied by a relatively narrow mindset which in my opinion are too much of \"muscularity\" and \"competition\", and too much focusing on the issue of \"legitimacy\" (Is this having something to do with current Taiwan\'s social/political ethos?).

I would assume that one important quality of being a top climber as you are is the ability to imagine -- so, as you are going to name a route, try to imagine something else other than the climbing itself. Why? Becuase able to climb a route is not an end itself -- it is both an end and means, or an end that serves as a means to other ends. Thinking climbing ONLY would not reflect such a logic; instead, thinking BOTH climbing and other things -- the surrounding, the nature, the people, the song you have llistened to the night before, the stories that pup out in you mind while you are confronting a crux, the lists can go on and on -- would. To name a route in this way, the \"culture\" of yours opens up and the name followed would be more likely to truly reflect \"you\" and the the \"meaning\" of that route.

So, why not try something \"softer,\" \"more social,\" and \"cheerful,\" sometime even \"playful\" -- something \"unconventional?\" Years later, the name you give would not only become a mark of 5.13 or so, but would also remind people the \"life\" you have \"shared\" with them when that route was created.

And years later, you would smile when in retrospect, you are remined by that route\'s name that after all, climbing is just part of your life -- a devoted part but nothing more. You will have other goals to fulfill, and other achievements of yours will lead your life. That name, that \"more natural, softer, cheerful, and playful\" name will only remind you that you have had such a wonderful life -- a 5.13 or 5.14 life but with something more.

So long, my friends! Climb well, enjoyably, and safely. Hope to see some of you next year here in the US. [img]images/forum/smilies/icon_wink.gif[/img]

1) When making rules, be prepared to confront with the fact that rules cannot solve each and every problems. Let me put here just one example which may seem a little too \"big\" but still relevant: the difficulties of democarcy.

To be legitimate, a democracy (as you have implied in your response that the rule-making process of climbing should be democratic) must ensure that the people are self-governing and that the higher rules and law guaranteeing democracy are protected from popular abuses. Conventionally, two approaches are available for articulating the rules of a democratic polity so defined. However, they both have certain defects:

On the one hand, we have the so-called \"constitutionalism,\" which, however, tends to become too preoccupied with the most fundamental issue of basic rights and principles of justice, at the expense of the MORAL DISAGREEMENTS that are and should remain at the center of ongoing debate. Constitutionalists is often said to detach themselves from the passions of everyday life while tracing popular values to a full specification of the rights and duties of citizens who are said to regard each other as free and equal beings. By overtly relying on constitutionalism, it is thus argued, democracy may run into what may be called \"substantive objection,\" which means that controversial MORAL INDETERMINANCIES are revealed in the meaning of these rights when being put to use. In the meantime, due to the fact that the constitutionalism defines in advance what can count as legitimate reasons, the citizens are being said to be deprived of the opportunity and the responsibility to grapple with the most significant moral questions and therefore lose a vital part of the training in responsibility and self-control that citizenship should bring forth.

On the other hand, we have the so-called \"proceduralism,\" the aim of which is to set the terms of full and fair participation by all citizens in democratic decision-making. But proceduralism is internally problematic: overtly relying on procedural rule is to err and discount the very possibility of serious democracies on moral controversies. For, once the rules are agreed to, policies can easily become the realm of bargaining over preferences and interests, and the result of which is often that broader coalitions of interests tend to win over narrower ones. That is to say, since ordinary people know perfectly well that it is not possible to altogether separate debates over procedures from debates over outcomes, process CANNOT remain neutral. Therefore, every choice of participatory procedure can be challenged, and must accordingly be defended, in the name of a principle. Whether justifications ascend or not, this process takes proceduralism back to just where it should be in the first place: an investigation of principles.

In short, democarcy is not an all-encompassing solution to problems. Nor are rules. They are by themselves problems needed to solve eternally. Rule-making is an art, not just a mechanic process; nor is it a solution to all the potential problems which may confront Taiwan\'s climbing community present and in the near future. Now, let us talk about the so-called \"international convention\" of naming:

2) First of all, the so-called \"international convention\" is questionable -- Is it genuine \"international,\" that is, a common rule observed by ALL climbing communities internationally, or, is it simply what we have interpreted from \"international\" magazines? To my understanding, the so-called \"international convention\" is not the former, for difefrent localities have different, albeit subtle, rules of naming, which serves those localities well becuase these rules rise historically, not being imposed upon, despite they may sometime run counter to the principles of what we have understood.

Secondly, sport climbing has been influenced greatly by commercial needs. Such influences may serve well to the princple of fairness -- indeed, it needs to becuase competition, whatever its form may be, is based on fairness, but it may not serve to a particular locality to the principles of adequacy as well as ethical harmony, the import of the latter you have already pointed out. Moreover, as I have argued else where, the scope and spirits of traditional cimbing is different than that of sport climbing. Thus, whether the \"rules\" that we are talking about are based on the commercialized standards, or based on the local balance between traditional and sport climbing, or based on Taiwan\'s particular circumstances, and what would be the likely consequences once the rules are made and implemented, needs to be thought over carefully.

So, third and finally, let us go back to the problem of democracy. Democracy is problematic, but there is one invaluable element inherent in a democractic process and democractic rule implementation: it is \"involvement,\" and alone with that, \"deliberation.\" In my opinion, we can afford not to have democracy but we cannot afford to lose \"involvement\" and \"deliberation.\" The results of the latter are qualities of \"tolerance\" and \"understanding,\" as your response has alluded to. Discussion yields these two qualities, so does participation. Taiwan needs both. Taiwan does not need \"iron cage\" -- which is so-called \"rationality\" in its strict sense as I have seen what the discussion of naming and changing holds are all about.

Again, I agree with you. This long comment serves only to clarify what I see of your response that can be subtle but important parts. [img]images/forum/smilies/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Climbing is just part of our life not entirely. and there are more things to be fulfill. I have found this after I was 30. From Climbing I have known many people, and they became my best friends. I think this is the most vaulable thing in my life, and even when I can not climb anymore I will still be able to keep these friends and memories.